where does Maskaev rank with the worst heayweight world titlists ever?

[Illmatic]

beat Rahman, and had a joke title defense against Okhello...thatss pretty bad, thats about on par with Bentt.

[Shpion]

Extremely low. Top 10 from the bottom. If you recall he could not even KO Okhello (who?)

[mr. magoo]

I wouldn't call him the worst or even close. He didn't win the belt until a very late age, and had to take avery hard road to get there. There is very little padding on his record. In his pro debut he knocked out a 21-0 prospect. In his 6th pro fight he got thrown in against top rated McCall. About that time, he beat up on two guys who were each 10-0, then knocked out Alex Stewart, before being stopped by David Tua. That's a tough schedul for a man with less than a dozen fights.

He was certainly better than Leon Spinks, John Ruiz, James Douglas, Earnie Terrell, Bruce Seldon and a few others that I can think of.

[Scorpion]

I wouldn't call him the worst or even close. He didn't win the belt until a very late age, and had to take avery hard road to get there. There is very little padding on his record. In his pro debut he knocked out a 21-0 prospect. In his 6th pro fight he got thrown in against top rated McCall. About that time, he beat up on two guys who were each 10-0, then knocked out Alex Stewart, before being stopped by David Tua. That's a tough schedul for a man with less than a dozen fights.

He was certainly better than Leon Spinks, John Ruiz, James Douglas, Earnie Terrell, Bruce Seldon and a few others that I can think of.

Totally agree :thumbsup

[Jennifer Love Hewitt]

He was certainly better than Leon Spinks, John Ruiz, James Douglas, Earnie Terrell, Bruce Seldon and a few others that I can think of.


John Ruiz was clearly a better champ than Maskaev. Ruiz fought nothing but live bodies (except tisdale) for all of his post championship fights. He won against a lot too.

James Douglas beat Tyson when Tyson was just not beatable. He lost to another great in Holyfield. That's more impressive than winning from Rahman and losing to Peter.

Spinks, Terell and Seldon did suck. Maskaev is on their level.

[Shpion]

I wouldn't call him the worst or even close. He didn't win the belt until a very late age, and had to take avery hard road to get there. There is very little padding on his record. In his pro debut he knocked out a 21-0 prospect. In his 6th pro fight he got thrown in against top rated McCall. About that time, he beat up on two guys who were each 10-0, then knocked out Alex Stewart, before being stopped by David Tua. That's a tough schedul for a man with less than a dozen fights.

He was certainly better than Leon Spinks, John Ruiz, James Douglas, Earnie Terrell, Bruce Seldon and a few others that I can think of.

I think you might have misunderstood the question. I think the author meant worst title holder in the sense of achievements after obtaining the belt.

[Illmatic]

I wouldn't call him the worst or even close. He didn't win the belt until a very late age, and had to take avery hard road to get there. There is very little padding on his record. In his pro debut he knocked out a 21-0 prospect. In his 6th pro fight he got thrown in against top rated McCall. About that time, he beat up on two guys who were each 10-0, then knocked out Alex Stewart, before being stopped by David Tua. That's a tough schedul for a man with less than a dozen fights.

He was certainly better than Leon Spinks, John Ruiz, James Douglas, Earnie Terrell, Bruce Seldon and a few others that I can think of.

Maskaev is one of the worst managed fighters of recent history, there's no denying that. But, I dont think that changes how he gained the title and what he did with it despite having it for like three years.

[Ambition_Def]

On par with Vitlay's title reign.

[mr. magoo]

I think you might have misunderstood the question. I think the author meant worst title holder in the sense of achievements after obtaining the belt.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but lets face it, I still think that some of the other past champions particularly many of the alpha holders in the past 30+ years were worse. James Douglas, Leon Spinks, Bruce Seldon, Jimmy Ellis, Earnie Terell and quite a few others never had a single title defense, and many of them either won the title in vacant fashion or beat champions who were declining. I also think that a fighter should be judged by his full overall body of works and not just his tenure as champion. Maskaev had a hard fought career that was acheived by taking the rough road, much like Joe Walcott. It should also be noted that the inactivity that he suffered during his reign was caused mostly by injury, and not the hesitance to defend his title.

[mr. magoo]

[quote=Jennifer Love Hewitt]John Ruiz was clearly a better champ than Maskaev. Ruiz fought nothing but live bodies (except tisdale) for all of his post championship fights. He won against a lot too.


Ruiz couldn't get a decisive outcome from a trilogy with a very shot Evander Holyfield. He was outboxed badly by a past prime Roy Jones moving up in weight with no prior fights in the division. He took a decision over Hasim Rahman who Maskaev Ko'd twice. Fres Oquendo and Andrew Golata weren't great opponents at the time either. I don't know if I'd say that Ruiz was " clearly better ". If anything its a marginal difference.


James Douglas beat Tyson when Tyson was just not beatable. He lost to another great in Holyfield. That's more impressive than winning from Rahman and losing to Peter.


James Douglas beat a clearly unmotivated Tyson who's problems outside the ring were becoming evident. Only 8 months later, he showed up thoroughly out of shape and didn't even give a half ass effort in losing to Holyfield. Maskaev's loss to Peter was at least more explicable due to his age and layoff caused by injuries rather than Douglas chosing to sit on his fat lazy ass. Also, if we look at their overall careers, Maskaev probably fought a higher volume of better fighters and started doing so at a much earlier stage .


Spinks, Terell and Seldon did suck. Maskaev is on their level.

He's certainly close to that level, but I'd probably rate him a notch above.

[Feiti]

He was bad mostly because of his inactivity and his taking a joke defense against Okhello. I´m a Klitschko fan and no fan of Sam Peter, but I still think it´s was ridiculous how that situation went. Oleg could have fought Peter well over a year ago and been done with it really, instead of fighting Okhello and then pingponging around with who to fight or not to fight for a year (some of that blame should also be shared with the Klitschko camp though).

[Irländsk]

Oleg is not as low as Seldon, at least Oleg went down swinging, Seldon just laid down against Tyson in one of the most pathetic title matches in history. Maskaev should've retired when he was injured, he had absolutely nothing left. But he had a good career and a very tough road to finally getting a belt and that is worthy of respect.

[2ironmt]

Perhaps I misunderstood, but lets face it, I still think that some of the other past champions particularly many of the alpha holders in the past 30+ years were worse. James Douglas, Leon Spinks, Bruce Seldon, Jimmy Ellis, Earnie Terell and quite a few others never had a single title defense, and many of them either won the title in vacant fashion or beat champions who were declining. I also think that a fighter should be judged by his full overall body of works and not just his tenure as champion. Maskaev had a hard fought career that was acheived by taking the rough road, much like Joe Walcott. It should also be noted that the inactivity that he suffered during his reign was caused mostly by injury, and not the hesitance to defend his title. Altho I like Oleg and agree about his overall career, if it's based on his reign, Oleg's gotta be one of the worst. Rahman hadn't looked good in years and even fighting Okhello is pretty bad. Than he got worked by a limited strongman in Peter and looked slow and weak (again not his fault). That's a pretty bad championship campaign. He probably should rank above Neon Leon and Seldon but at least Buster got the belt in spectaclular fashion beating the undisputed top guy (on an off night for Tyson but still it was Tyson).

[Farmboxer]

And what does that say about Peter? Vitali will most likely have to go to court to force Peter to fight him. HBO could not get a commitment for a fight with Vlad even if Vitali let Vlad fight him. Vitali has a legal right to this fight and Don King is trying to get out of it ASAP.

[TRUEBELIEVER 66]

Oleg was just to inactive, too many injuries and at 39, let's face it wasn't gonna get any better, he was on the same level as a Michael Dokes or a Bonecrusher Smith, nothing special..

[Hank]

I don't consider him a champ, just a title belt holder. Average contender, nothing special. Very good fighter, but not a champ in any era. Same for most belt holders over the years.

[Russell]

I wouldn't call him the worst or even close. He didn't win the belt until a very late age, and had to take avery hard road to get there. There is very little padding on his record. In his pro debut he knocked out a 21-0 prospect. In his 6th pro fight he got thrown in against top rated McCall. About that time, he beat up on two guys who were each 10-0, then knocked out Alex Stewart, before being stopped by David Tua. That's a tough schedul for a man with less than a dozen fights.

He was certainly better than Leon Spinks, John Ruiz, James Douglas, Earnie Terrell, Bruce Seldon and a few others that I can think of.

The fight with Tua bothers me, honestly.

Maskaev controlled him the entire fight, convincingly. Gets caught with a hard combination late in the fight, goes down... And the fights instantly stopped.

Seemed like some people didn't WANT Maskaev to go places, period.

[mr. magoo]

The fight with Tua bothers me, honestly.

Maskaev controlled him the entire fight, convincingly. Gets caught with a hard combination late in the fight, goes down... And the fights instantly stopped.

Seemed like some people didn't WANT Maskaev to go places, period.

And what's worse is that Maskaev was 10-1, whereas Tua was 26-0. Maskaev's career track reminds me a little bit of Joe Walcott's. Both guys took a lot of hard fights early in their careers. I agree with some of the posters on this thread that Maskaev's actual reign as champion was a weak one, but I prefer to judge fighters based on what their whole career looked like. Oleg fought a lot of very tough guys. He wasn't a protected fighter at all the way that a lot of modern prospects so often are. He earned his right to get a shot at the title, regardless of it being a poor reign.